https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405438 Interim protection over leased company property was treated as justified where the transaction showed prima facie irregularities, including differing lease deeds, non-registration of the earlier deed, stamp-duty concerns, disputed notice to a director, related-party elements, and unauthorised banking arrangements. On those facts, preservation of possession pending final adjudication was considered necessary to protect the subject matter. A limitation objection under section 242(2)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013 did not defeat that protective relief, because the surrounding circumstances suggested hurried execution and registration of the documents after the company petition and continuing compliance gaps. en-us Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:46:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405438 Interim protection over leased company property was treated as justified where the transaction showed prima facie irregularities, including differing lease deeds, non-registration of the earlier deed, stamp-duty concerns, disputed notice to a director, related-party elements, and unauthorised banking arrangements. On those facts, preservation of possession pending final adjudication was considered necessary to protect the subject matter. A limitation objection under section 242(2)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013 did not defeat that protective relief, because the surrounding circumstances suggested hurried execution and registration of the documents after the company petition and continuing compliance gaps. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405438